Wtf??

[jubaji]

.......................................................

Starting to stutter now huh??? How many reports have to say "contrary to white house claims" my lord??

Will it be your logic or your limited grasp of the English language that fails you this time?

[BoarSpear]

Will it be your logic or your limited grasp of the English language that fails you this time?

it says it all that jubaji is GWB's defender of integrity argue with yourself boy 50% of the american public believed the white house thought iraq was connected to 911.

[jubaji]

Oh you want to try this again, shitforbrains?

50% of the american public believed the white house thought iraq was connected to 911.

"I'd be interested to see the evidence you have of President Bush ever saying that Iraq was directly responsible for the attacks of 9/11."

[jubaji]

50% of the american public believed the white house thought iraq was connected to 911.

I guess it was logic that failed you yet again...

[kerambit]

Hey, Jubaji, I have some real bad news.

Bush and Cheney have asserted repeatedly that there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, even after these assertions were found to be false by the 911 commission.

Here's a part of the report: "There is no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein in any way were part of the attack on the United States."

Here is a link to the report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/16_06_04_staff_statement_16.pdf

This report was released on June 16 2004.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush stated on Sept. 17 2003. He went on to falsely assert that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda, which was in fact untrue: Saddam, a secular dictator, hated Al Qaeda and had numerous Al Qaeda members in his prisons and torture camps.

THIS CONTRADICTS STATEMENTS MADE BY BOTH CHENEY AND BUSH, who flat out LIED TO THE UNITED STATES by repeatedly tying Iraq to Al Qaeda.

Here are some assertions made by Bush Administration officials tying Saddam to 911:

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror."

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September. We were the ones bombing Iraq at this time.

"We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America."

President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.

"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. No WMD (to speak of) have ever been found in Iraq despite Saddam's admission to UN inspectors that he had a rather substantial development program prior to Gulf War I.

"The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime."

President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003. In fact, operational ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq have never been established despite a protracted investigation.

"For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.

They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.

We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003. Bring 'em on.

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September."

US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003. Powell has since stated that he feels "nauseated" by the part he was forced to play in the deceptions of the Bush administration. He's since been meeting numerous times with Federal Prosecutor Fitzgerals, the man in charge of the huge and wide-ranging investigation of white house corruption.

"We don't know."

Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.

"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it."

Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.

"[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged."

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003. Um, ok, Condi. Go buy some thousand dollar shoes.

Jubaji, wake up and smell the sweet scent of Folgers.

Oh, and get over the whole "Bitter Losers" thing. I'd stop using that line, if I were you, because it could come back and haunt you. You seem to be one of these people who believe that unpleasantness, nastiness and volume can drown out the truth. It can...

But only for a while.

[jubaji]

Hey, Jubaji, I have some real bad news.
Jubaji, wake up and smell the sweet scent of Folgers.

.

Oh, would you like to try?


"I'd be interested to see the evidence you have of President Bush ever saying that Iraq was directly responsible for the attacks of 9/11."


Is this really so hard to grasp?

[cam427]

Dont waste your time.

It always comes down to spelling, grammar, semantecs, etc when he starts to lose an argument. Unless you have a quote of GWB actually saying

"Iraq was directly responsible for the attacks of 9/11"

just leave it.

[jubaji]

Oh, and get over the whole "Bitter Losers" thing. I'd stop using that line, if I were you.

Well, it sure is nice of you to give me advice...


I'll tell ya what, as soon as the bitter losers decide take a break you let me know.

[jubaji]

Dont waste your time.

Unless you have a quote of GWB actually saying

"Iraq was directly responsible for the attacks of 9/11"

just leave it.

A voice of reason in the wilderness?

[kerambit]

Jubaji, I agree with the gentleman who said it's a waste of time. Political arguments on forums usually are; the medium isn't well suited to any sort of rational discussion. People can just say what they want and it tends to degenerate into bickering, in the absence of mods with too much time on their hands.

I'll just leave it at this: The United States is a wounded country. The bleeding is getting worse. Belligerence and petty "my-team" attitudes aren't helping the situation.

We have a president and an administration who have embroiled our military in an untenable war on bogus pretexts for reasons that are rather obscure but appear to have something to do with personal enrichment and political power. The republican party has been hijacked by a defacto criminal gang, upwards of 20 of whom are under indictment or intense scrutiny for a whole cornucopia of crimes.

Don't even try to deny it.

[jubaji]

Jubaji, I agree with the gentleman who said it's a waste of time.

Does that mean you're gonna shut up?

[jubaji]

We have a president and an administration who have embroiled our military in an untenable war on bogus pretexts for reasons that are rather obscure but appear to have something to do with personal enrichment and political power.

"rather obscure"? That means you are too dim to comprehend a fairly simple notion.


Tell me this, do you think that President Bush, with all of the personal and family connections he has that many of you gutter-snipes resent so much, would earn more money per year as President of the United States, or in some private sector situation? (hint: this is an 'A' or 'B' type of question, no need to go off on another tangent)

In light of the fact that this is a long, hard struggle both in Iraq and against the political scavengers at home, has a whole lot of "political power" been won through the war?

Is it possible, just possible, that your own personal bias is really what is driving your views on these matters? Is that possible?

[cam427]

Does that mean you're gonna shut up?

When having any discussion with you, you try and bully people and make fun of them. This is the problem with internet discussions in general especially when unreasonable people are involved.

Remember the old saying. Before you speak make sure it is an improvement on the silence.

[jubaji]

The republican party has been hijacked by a defacto criminal gang, upwards of 20 of whom are under indictment or intense scrutiny for a whole cornucopia of crimes.

Don't even try to deny it.

LOL

I like "Don't even try to deny it" It has the appropriate sense of begging to it.

Here we see more hyperbole at work. Oh, the drama makes it all so much more delicious, doesn't it? *vomit*

"indictment or intense scrutiny" LOL
If you are over the age of 25 I trust you don't need this one explained for you. If you are under the age of 25 stfu until you are.

[jubaji]

When having any discussion with you, you try and bully people and make fun of them.

"bully"? I can assure you I have aquired no lunch money in any inappropriate manner via this forum.


I wonder if you condemn the expression of opposing points of view in all areas of your life?